Jump to content

The Knowledge Argument – Mary’s Room (The Color Scientist)


Linkzelda

Recommended Posts

The Knowledge Argument – Mary’s Room

 

 

Note: I'm using the hidden code to make it easier for others that want to hide them after reading them.

 

For more information on this thought experiment, check out these links here:

[hidden]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/#2

 

YouTube Link that’s about 5 minutes:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZy3Ky9y_fg

 

And of course, Wikipedia:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

 

[/hidden]

 

 

Anyway, let’s get on with the thought experiment:

 

Mary the Color Scientist

 

From plato.standford.edu:

 

[hidden]

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on.

 

She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’.… What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor?

 

Will she learn anything or not? It seems just obvious that she will learn something about the world and our visual experience of it. But then is it inescapable that her previous knowledge was incomplete. But she had all the physical information. Ergo there is more to have than that, and Physicalism is false.

 

Basically, the thought experiment revolves around Mary who has access to all physical facts about the world, including, but not limited to:

 

- The wavelength of a color

- The speed of light

- How dense a mouse pad would be

- The length from one planet to another

 

[/hidden]

 

 

The Actual Formulation of the Knowledge Argument

 

[hidden]It’s a thought experiment that has been used to go against materialistic worldviews in showing that there can be non-physical facts about the world. And through the times, the argument has evolved as much as the criticism behind it. So, to save you having to read all that information on the history of it being evolved, I’ll quote the more explicit, stronger version of the argument here:

 

 

 

Premise P1: Mary has complete physical knowledge about human color vision before her release.

 

Therefore

 

Consequence C1: Mary knows all the physical facts about human color vision before her release.

 

Premise P2: There is some (kind of) knowledge concerning facts about human color vision that Mary does not have before her release.

 

Therefore (from (P2)):

 

Consequence C2: There are some facts about human color vision that Mary does not know before her release.

 

Therefore (from (C1) and (C2)):

 

Consequence C3: There are non-physical facts about human color vision.

 

There’s still criticism over it, but it revolves around things like:

 

- Indexical knowledge/Implicit Knowledge

- Modes of presentation

- Practicing what one conceptually knows

- Dualism (e.g. property dualism)

 

 

So, let’s put this into context of tulpas:

[/hidden]

 

 

 

Having our Tulpas Play the Role of Mary, the Color Scientist

 

[hidden] What I mean by this is, and I'm not asking you to literally RP here, just think about it:

 

- One can presume that because this phenomenon with tulpas exist within one’s mind, and is exclusive to that mind, there would be some sharing of whatever cognitive processes, and such in the brain for them to potentially use in our quest in treating them as sentient.

 

- Through this assumption alone, one can make out the idea that in some way, our tulpas has access to all conceptual knowledge of what it means to have qualia, and to have an inner experience of seeing red, or how black a computer mouse is, or the feeling of pain, and other emotions. You could say that, metaphorically speaking, one’s tulpas are in a black and white room in our minds that has its own blueprint of structuring this reality.

 

- And just like Mary, who inevitably has her release outside of that monochrome room to see a barrage of colors, sensations, and feelings, concepts such as possession/switching may be one of many activities in which our tulpa can “get out” of that imaginative and conceptual mode of thought on what it means to have a “ness,” or experience of something. And to have an experience of something would imply there being a probability of consciously experiencing it since in order to practice what one would already know conceptually already implies some conscious fixation into learning about that.

 

- So, instead of trying to use physical facts about the world for one to create their own truths on whether or not their tulpa can be sentient, or conscious if we wanted to be simplistic, we actually set up concepts for this. And if qualia, sense perceptions and what have you, is something that validates how we can be conscious of an experience, it raises a lot of questions on whether or not if one can get a tulpa into that same “escape” from conceptual and imaginative knowledge of something, they can create their personal assurance that via activities like possession and switching, they are conscious beings; not physically speaking, but through non-physical means.

 

[/hidden]

 

Interdependence

 

[hidden]Interdependence is basically being mutually reliant on each other. And in context of tulpas, and the mind they share with the host, I’m going to throw out a presumption that this could be one type of end-goal they could strive for. One, it allows independence to be practice, but not to the point of going so deep into it that one really feels there’s a separation equivalent to a “physical” one, as it may really just be a metaphorical, or a conceptual type of separation from one conscious experiencer instead. Seeking a full-fledged independence seems to create, IMO, a pseudo-problem because it can create implications (but aren’t exclusive to these things, as people can cherry-pick around):

 

- Separation from the mind, even though they would be within the mind

- Inner experiences, i.e., our beetle in the box, would be treated as a tulpa having their own inner experiences that isn’t reliant on the mind in general; that implication of autonomy and subsistence/maintenance in their existence.

 

I think, even if one treated full-fledged independence as a conceptual thing, it tends to create a pseudo-problem that distracts us from other potential end-game goals, like Interdependence. Although one would have in the back of their mind that their tulpas are reliant are certain things, the intention seems to be that over time, they are less reliant. But through interdependence, it would show they still are, but not in a way of seeking Dependence as an end-goal in itself.

 

Interdependence would just be the acknowledgment that both host and tulpas are reliant on the cognitive processes in their brain, and what allows them to experience qualia, just as Mary did when she was released from her monochrome chamber. And even if a tulpa can gain all conceptual knowledge about this world, and may even have access of how the mind models the mode of practicing these experiences, they too, just like Mary, would have to find a way to exercise what they learned conceptually.

 

Through this end-goal, or striving for it, it’s not about having a tulpa create their own box, and telling their host to stay out of it just to get an assurance that they’re not restricted to the thoughts of the conscious experiencer, as being less reliant on conscious thoughts (vs. unconscious ones) is just but one of many goals a person would strive for. [/hidden]

 

 

Possession and Switching

 

[hidden]These two concepts, that you can find more information on through the tulpa.info wiki, seem to be created as a potential for a tulpa to get a chance to put things into context of this reality. However, I’m not saying these two concepts HAVE to be done in order to validate potential sentience, and conscious experience for a tulpa. But rather, based on the thought experiment alone, and what it implies, these two concepts can be used as personal assurance that in order for a tulpa to switch with a host, and take into context of this reality, it necessitates that they can be considered a potential, conscious experiencer.

 

Because if the mind doesn’t have a conscious experiencer to even apply cognitive processes for qualia, and such, then it would just be firing these processes to no end for no observer to experience this. And, if it’s possible for a tulpa to be a stand-in experiencer without being able to consciously experience things, it introduces the probability of p-zombies being a potential experiencer within one’s mind. For more information on p-zombies, check out this thread here. [/hidden]

 

Questions

 

[hidden]Note: The discussions don’t have to be limited to these questions

 

- What are your general thoughts about this argument?

 

- Do you feel that physicalism, or other materialistic worldviews have to be used to validate this phenomenon?

 

 

- Do you think there can be non-physical facts about the world?

 

- Is full-fledged independence something you think creates a pseudo-problem? Is Interdependence a more pragmatic option for you? Or, do you have a different end-game goal with sentience of a tulpa?

 

 

- If you haven’t glanced over this thread here already for this question, please do so; Do you think that wanting a tulpa to have their own inner experiences, i.e., beetle in a box, rather than sharing it, creates a pseudo-problem?

 

- Because if one cannot know another who shares their mind of their inner experiences (within that same mind, mind you), how can there be features in the mind that assumes inaccessibility of those inner experiences a tulpa may have? Wouldn’t it just be a self-referential dead-end to not know that beetle in the box that a tulpa would be treated to have that creates a pseudo problem?

 

 

 

- Do you think possession and switching are end-game assurances for a tulpa to consciously experience things? Do you have other practices related to tulpas that can get this same effect?

 

- Is conceptual knowledge of what it means to experience something enough? Do you think there needs to be other ways for a tulpa to bridge that gap of probability that they could be treated as sentient, and develop progressively?

 

[/hidden]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

This reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Do you think that a mindset, such as stubborn skepticism, such as mine, can be like living in a cave?

 

Physicalism, the doctrine that the real world consists simply of the physical world. With the so called "soft sciences" such as psychology, we often don't get physical evidence. We base much of the science on careful observation and then building models to explain and predict behavior. The mind is not so physical is it? So to understand something that exists only in the mind, like tulpamancy, we would have to go beyond just physicalism.

 

I don't want to enter into an in depth discussion about sentience again on this forum. It always leads to some sort of uncomfortable argument for me. So I will leave it at this. But I do think that humans can't really understand the universe by having no imagination and only quantifying or qualifying the physical and tangible. There are things beyond our senses and even beyond our instruments to extend our senses. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s interesting for you to link those two together, thanks.

 

In a way, the thought experiment with Mary, the color scientist, having to practice these experiences to update what she already knows about the physical world vs. her believing she already knew this via physical facts is more of a private sense of revelation for the person. In context of tulpas, activities such as possession and switching can be an indirect way of “Wow! This is Real!” for a tulpa.

 

This may make a tulpa inclined to share this insight with others, but in a world where people accepted that things are real, they may be shrugged off as being a little “out” there in something so obvious; this is where the allegory of the cave comes in. So, for them, a tulpa, to prove something to others who already lived a lifestyle of embracing reality as it is, it seems kind of pointless.

 

However, if they were to say “Wow! This is Real!” to a host on the other hand, there’s a feedback loop of assurance communicated between the host and tulpa. The doubting gradually subsides, in a way, that if a tulpa can come to the revelation that the things they’re experiencing, which necessitates some degree of being conscious, they can validate themselves as being conscious experiencers. Simply due that they had to have some access to that conceptual knowledge of things, and whatever reactive processes in the mind that allows them to see the red of something, or having the sensation of moving their hands to move a computer mouse, for instance.

 

But in the end, even if both try to enlighten others on this revelation of potential sharing of qualia in a mind, the beetle in the box comes into play where even if language seems to compensate for the inaccessibility of other minds’ experiences, that direct access of inner experiences via third person (e.g. the other person accessing the first hand experiences of another’s inner experiences) isn’t feasible. They, the tulpa and the host, still have to embrace learning how to enjoy the privacy of the mind they share rather than exercising futile efforts trying to enlighten others the play-by-play of it.

 

So, it’s no surprise that you feel uncomfortable going further into it because in a way, you may feel yourself as Plato where you worry about the social context of language being so dominating to where communities would “ostracize” you for trying to think a bit more differently. But this isn’t exclusive in that probable scenario I made up for you since it can apply to anyone else that wants to go further into thinking, but is worried about arguments in general. But, discussions where it’s a hugbox and echo chamber isn’t really the essential ingredient for discussion; arguments are welcomed as well, it’s just ironically, like the Allegory of the Cave, people become hostile when people call out on something someone is experiencing, or potentially experiencing, and believing.

 

But the clincher here is that if there's nothing to call out, and to base discussions on, we have nothing to point to. So, it's a matter of just growing some backbone where even if the uncomfortable nature comes at you like a freight train, you can handle it. But, I can't force you to talk, as that would just be silly to demand of anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reisen was the first of us to switch (before I was born) idk how long ago looks like at least October 2014 from what I could find, and I can remember the first time any of us switched really well. I think they fancified the memory though. Anyways, the first time they switched was with Reisen at like 4AM, and I remember she looked out our window and "saw the moonlight shining on our front yard and wanted to cry". But like, you can't see moonlight like that, so maybe the memory is biased. Or maybe she could really see it? Either way, she was super sensitive to all the senses for our first times switching. Dem weirdos liked to touch random objects to feel the textures and were totally enthralled by it. Since we're not like that anymore (I still enjoy engaging the senses, but like.. outside.. in the wind and stuff.. not feeling the paint on our wall) you could probably say that, uh. Well it's been a long time since I read the OP now with the stuff I had to look up, but I think that was relevant somehow right? They were at least five years old by then but were still totally caught up in using the senses when they learned to switch and got desensitized by the time I could've.

 

Definitely probably relevant.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That anecdote is another “Wow! This is Real!” for Reisen.

 

However, I was wondering what was wrong with this revelation here:

 

I remember she looked out our window and "saw the moonlight shining on our front yard and wanted to cry".

 

Now, I went with the assumption that Reisen just had a profound experience of crying from how they were able to experience the moonlight hitting their face.

 

But like, you can't see moonlight like that, so maybe the memory is biased. Or maybe she could really see it? Either way, she was super sensitive to all the senses for our first times switching.

 

Remember, this assumption that they’re still trapped from memory vs. actually experiencing this reality stems from the mind deceiving them into thinking they’re experiencing qualia, which means there would be some doubting if they’re really experiencing this, and somehow just happened to express those feelings of crying. But, to have that negativity and doubting is to not really think that via switching, that there’s a switch with another conscious experiencer, or someone to take the dominion of the body and mind.

 

Which makes me question if it’s really about taking dominion of the body and mind vs. just taking the dominion of the role of the conscious experiencer since those processes the brain uses for body and mind will happen due to there being a conscious experiencer. Because, if I’m not mistaken in this presumption, taking dominion of the body and mind seems to introduce having proficiency in all that can be implied in controlling the body, even involuntary ones.

 

But, in Reisen’s case, it’s not like they could control the crying, as this profound experience, and that revelation they had of seeing the moonlight for what it is via the shared perceptions and experiences the host would conform to was just that: profound, and new for them; that “Wow! This is Real!”

 

Dem weirdos liked to touch random objects to feel the textures and were totally enthralled by it. Since we're not like that anymore (I still enjoy engaging the senses, but like.. outside.. in the wind and stuff.. not feeling the paint on our wall) you could probably say that, uh.

 

I wouldn’t really call it weird because like Mary after her release, I’m sure she would want to go for a hands-on approach with these colors, and how they’re associated with those objects to have a “Wow! This is Real!” Over time, yes, I guess the novelty would wear off, but like anything that seems to have the novelty fade away, reconciling with those profound feelings can be a way to just acknowledge it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really follow those middle paragraphs, but you took some things I said too seriously. In our memory our front yard has strong white-ish shiny moonlight which is totally not true, but that's how it felt to Reisen. It doesn't really look that cool, even on full moons. I'm not doubting the experience I'm just aware that memories aren't always 100% accurate, they get changed based on how you perceived them mentally and not just physically. Also I should say for reasons that Reisen didn't actually cry, I don't know if Lumi's body/mind is capable of crying due to emotion, it hasn't happened since he was less than five. But, she did have the "tears of happiness" feeling, that's for sure.

 

But yeah idk the difference in "controlling the body/mind & taking the role as conscious experiencer". It's both? I'm the one experiencing our senses and using the conscious mind to think, which also means I'm connected to the body and feeling the senses directly.. question mark? Well the last thing I wanna do is discuss the legitimacy/mechanics of our switching, I deal with enough doubts coming from the mind already. Like, our brain throws up skepticisms all the time automatically and it's really annoying. Tewi hates it, but it just annoys me. We're 100% secure on our understanding of what we are and how we work so most of the doubts I just say "Well I know I'm me, so". They're like, devil's advocate doubts, not real ones. What was I talking about? Oh yeah, "not switching". I can maybe explain what it's like for us if you want though, I don't even remember why I didn't want to in the first place.

 

And yeah I didn't mean they were really weird, it's just funny to me. Because they would like, literally run their hands over our desk, the walls, the carpet, etc. When I first switched I just liked being able to actually do things, hop around (not quite literally) and stuff. But that was a long time later so I understand.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I had that other assumption that the experiences were overlayed with some kind of special effect that over-exaggerated things. I literally thought this was Reisen looking at the moon, and experiencing actual light emitting from the moon. I guess in some way, how they constructed what reality could be like would have some nuances, but over time, it would settle out.

 

It just goes to show that when relying on conceptual knowledge of the world along with preferences a tulpa may have (e.g. an affinity for the moonlight, and what have you), exercising that knowledge through new experiences would help Reisen be more tuned to what's really there. As for the crying, I guess because there was an experiential context when Lumi was younger, that experience may be implied as stored memory, and Reisen just happened to get that sensation of crying, or at least understanding what it means to have a profound experience of something; the gathering of getting that "crying" experience could be due to other sources, e.g., via television, seeing a baby cry, or someone crying over an achievement, etc. I realized when I stated "I went with the assumption that..." I forgot to talk about the other assumption, which is this post. I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what crying's like man, just haven't done it. But it's such a basic human thing that we know it so well we feel like we've experienced it. Idk. Anyways, forget the crying thing that didn't happen and just know Reisen was in total awe at seeing something relatively normal 'cus despite "being around" for those types of experiences she had never had it herself.

Hi, I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

I think being happy and having fun makes life worth living, so spreading happiness is my number one goal!

Talk to us? https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like this argument, I think it's one of the most important ones in the field. Oh, yeah, I remember, I think I mentioned it in the previous qualia thread, in reply to someone.

 

Anyway, I think the term "non-physical knowledge" isn't inaccurate but it's somewhat confused by Mary examining the experiences of other humans; that means that she can also have those experiences, which is a special case. If you imagine her studying a non-human system with qualia, then she can't learn what she eventually learned about humans, yet an alien scientist would. But those two would have the same physical knowledge. The point is that the non-physical knowledge is intrinsic to the system experiencing the qualia, because the qualia themselves are intrinsic to the system. The knowledge is non-physical because you need to be inside a specific system (the one under description) to be able to experience those qualia, and so it's really a specific state of that system rather than a statement about the rest of the world.

 

So I guess that's my physicalist explanation of what's going on. As for how it relates to tulpas, I guess the idea around possession/switching is interesting. I guess there's a kind of novelty around being the one doing and feelings things maybe, but then I think a lot of people do "sense sharing" or at least share memories with their tulpas before they get near the body, either of which should contain that experiential knowledge.

 

With that said, if that weren't the case you'd have an interesting scenario. Like you said, you could function without qualia - which I don't think is really a true p-zombie. But I suspect that that's not the case, for the reasons I said above, and also because switched in I strongly suspect a tulpa uses the same executive functions as the host, which should include qualia-generating structures, intuitively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what crying's like man, just haven't done it. But it's such a basic human thing that we know it so well we feel like we've experienced it. Idk.

 

I can’t shrug it off because:

 

- This is the same as you being confident that the conceptual knowledge you have of what it means to cry is sufficient enough to not really have the need to experience it. And even with the given limit of not experiencing the sensation of crying due to how it seems improbable since your host hasn’t expressed this feeling in a long time, it still isn’t sufficient for you all, excluding Lumi of course, to “know” what crying’s like. Because that “like” implies a “likeness,” which implies some kind of “ness” to something, which implies to experiencing sensations.

 

- You, Lucilyn, and anyone else within the mind of Lumi, have to experience, or exercise those sensations of crying. Whether it’s exercised by crying due to the amount of sphaghetti falling out of your pockets, or over a soap opera, until you, yourself, established that experiential context, you can’t get that satisfaction. Even if your host has experiential context, it’s nothing more than conceptual knowledge since what is in the past doesn’t exist today. You have to feel those sensations of the spaghetti falling out; all of that good spaghetti gone to waste, and the sensation of anger over how much more pasta you need to buy to replenish this. If not, it’s the same as a teenager thinking, “Oh, Mom or Dad can buy more pasta with their credit card.” No, you are going to carry that weight.

 

- I’m over-exaggerating here, but you get my point.

 

Anyway, I think the term "non-physical knowledge" isn't inaccurate but it's somewhat confused by Mary examining the experiences of other humans; that means that she can also have those experiences, which is a special case. If you imagine her studying a non-human system with qualia, then she can't learn what she eventually learned about humans, yet an alien scientist would. But those two would have the same physical knowledge….

 

So I guess that's my physicalist explanation of what's going on.

 

Actually, yeah, that would be a good point to address. And even though it would be a physicalist way of putting it, there is acknowledgment of a potential non-physical aspect to it, which would to some degree, imply some kidn of dualism. However, I’m sure you’re aware of this. That point you made is actually something the philosopher who coined this thought experiment didn’t take into account of. I think most of the thought experiments fixated on self being the only self, and us being the only conscious experiencers of our own mind fell victim to this as well. Though, I’m sure if they knew about the concept of tulpas, they would’ve been open to them as it seems to resonate towards potential non-physical presumptions, and facts about the mind. Especially Wittgenstein—he was big on the whole camaraderie thing as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...